Stile writes:
Yes, I agree that the message is the way the world should go.
But it's not reasonable to ascribe this message to Jesus just because the message is a good one.
Brushing my teeth everyday is also a good message, and a way the world should go.
Do you ascribe that to Jesus as well?
If you're being reasonable... then you must.
If you don't... then you need to find some other point of indication in order to ascribe this message to Jesus and have it be "reasonable."
But I'm not ascribing the message to Jesus. I am as a theist ascribing the message to God. Jesus delivers the message. As the message has been shown to be reliable in the area it does add credibility to whatever else Jesus says.
Stile writes:
As aspect of reason is consistency.
I agree that this resonation in your personal experiences leads you to your belief in Jesus.
But there are many other people who'e resonation in their personal experiences leads them away from belief in Jesus.
This point isn't consistent either.
Therefore, it's not a "reasonable" point to believe in Jesus.
If other people's experiences lead them away from Jesus is it then "reasonable" for them not to believe in Jesus? We all form beliefs based on our subjective views. That does not make them unreasonable.
Stile writes:
Something like praying to Jesus and always getting the prayer answered would be a logical and reasonable reason to belief in the existence of Jesus. It wouldn't be proof at all (it's possible that the greater-than-God being is answering these prayers as a trick...) but it would at least be reasonable.
All logical and reasonable points are consistent. If they cannot be applied consistently, then it's not a reasonable or logical idea.
Sure if prayer was always answered then it would be an indication but it would also be a quite different God than I believed in but even if it were the case it would only be evidence for a god and not necessarily the Father that Jesus prayed to.
It would also mean that it would be a god we can control which is something of a perverse idea.
Stile writes:
Again, this isn't consistent.
It seems to me that if there was a pre-existing intelligence responsible for life then it seems reasonable to conclude that this intelligence would be objectively active in what they are responsible for. But we don't see this.
So who is reasonable? Me? Or you?
The answer, of course, is that neither of us are being reasonable. Because the idea isn't consistent.
How do you know that we don’t see this? All we know is the world functions with what appears to be natural processes. Thoughts come in and out of our head and we muddle along. Who knows what it looks what things would be like without an involved god.
We all have some form of world view even if it just boils down to looking out for number one, and we hold these views with varying degrees of confidence without consistency and without objective knowledge. I assume then from your standpoint that there isn’t a reasonable person amongst us.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8
™ Version 4.2
(1)